is it a conlang and a conlanger...

[lsd]

at what level of completion can a conlang project be considered a conlang...
and a conlang enthusiast a conlanger...

[Khemehekis]

Im, is wahazas oyez hamargat oor Kankonik, do is HAUESS az wan as me*oskarol. Is hazien ad tzehimez esid wan.

Sible, feashtzehifashes mui kheniliatzehifashes mui wamhuztzehifashes az avim wahazen adfinetz yiul kampas tzehimez aas, mui mem as karolme*osfashes muye.

Am mahan me*oskaroles na mem as me*oskaroles?

well 1s be_able_to-PRES say all_this like Kankonian so 1s know-PRS that 3s PRS conlang. 1s make-PST to language real 3s

on_the_other_hand scrapper-PL and sandboxer-PL and paralytic-PL REL never be_able_to-PRS develop this far language exist-PRS and 3p PRS conlanger-PL also

but Q conlang-PL of 3p PRS conlang-PL

Well, I can say all this in Kankonian, so I KNOW it's a conlang. I made it a real language.

On the other hand, there are scrappers, sandboxers, and paralytics who've never been able to develop a language this far, and they're conlangers too.

But are their conlangs conlangs?

[Arayaz]

On the other hand, there are scrappers, sandboxers, and paralytics who've never been able to develop a language this far, and they're conlangers too.

But are their conlangs conlangs?

That this is even a question offends me. Of course they are. They are languages, and they are not natlangs, and they are not ciphers or fake languages, therefore they are conlangs.

[Khemehekis]

On the other hand, there are scrappers, sandboxers, and paralytics who've never been able to develop a language this far, and they're conlangers too.

But are their conlangs conlangs?

That this is even a question offends me. Of course they are. They are languages, and they are not natlangs, and they are not ciphers or fake languages, therefore they are conlangs.

So, mem nairas phokel ad me*oskaroles -- hom e tzehimezes az os as bidinkaroles muyos tzehimezes ad yemas muyos babkwoizes muyas.

Do, demoi ad adlui dyu LSD aspas e: "Me*oskarol wahazas shiangizas shil me*oskarol grasi wan alhekhizas".

Is ien ladaur, halem, az vroshumas hel adromikin az avim daspamos pai TZEHIMEZ, oor hames az alhekhizas dyu Ryan Aditya, OS as me*oskarol. Wan as vroshumas.

yes 3p meet definition of conlang-PL by_means_of BE languages-PL REL NEG PRES natlang-PL nor language-PL for computer-PL nor language_game-PL etc.

therefore answer to question by LSD seem-PRS BE conlang be_able_to-PRS consider-PSV-PRS as conlang as_soon_as 3s create-PSV-PRS

1s would venture_to_say however that phonemic_inventory with romanization REL never grow-FUT into language such_as that-PL REL create-PSV-PST by Ryan Aditya NEG PRS conlang. 3s PRS phonemic_inventory

Yes, they meet the definition of conlangs -- by being languages that are not natlangs, computer languages, language games, etc.

Therefore, the answer to LSD's question seems to be: "A conlang can be considered a conlang as soon as it is created".

I would venture to say, though, that a phonemic inventory with a romanization that will never grow into a LANGUAGE, such as those created by Ryan Aditya, is NOT a conlang. It is a phonemic inventory.

[Arayaz]

On the other hand, there are scrappers, sandboxers, and paralytics who've never been able to develop a language this far, and they're conlangers too.

But are their conlangs conlangs?

That this is even a question offends me. Of course they are. They are languages, and they are not natlangs, and they are not ciphers or fake languages, therefore they are conlangs.

Yes, they meet the definition of conlangs -- by being languages that are not natlangs, computer languages, language games, etc.

Therefore, the answer to LSD's question seems to be: "A conlang can be considered a conlang as soon as it is created".

I would venture to say, though, that a phonemic inventory with a romanization that will never grow into a LANGUAGE, such as those created by Ryan Aditya, is NOT a conlang. It is a phonemic inventory.

I would agree. Like many things with art, I think it comes down to intent. If you intend it to be a language, then it counts as a conlang, with few exceptions.

[Porphyrogenitos]

I would actually say that almost all conlangs are not languages, and that there is no level completeness necessary to be a conlang. A conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is, of course, a conlang. But it is most certainly not a language. A language is not a short grammatical description and a wordlist. It is a social and psychological phenomenon that exists in human behavior. Thus, very few conlangs can be said to be languages. The vast majority of conlangs are properly regarded as incomplete models of languages. Therefore, the conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is much, much more similar to the conlang with a list of three typological traits and a 1-paragraph phonological sketch in the phonology thread than it is to a real language. Both can thus be termed conlangs. Only when a conlang actually begins to behave as a language, i.e. see actual use - perhaps spoken by a community, but also perhaps only in written form by a single writer - can it be said to be a language.

[Khemehekis]

I would actually say that almost all conlangs are not languages, and that there is no level completeness necessary to be a conlang. A conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is, of course, a conlang. But it is most certainly not a language. A language is not a short grammatical description and a wordlist. It is a social and psychological phenomenon that exists in human behavior. Thus, very few conlangs can be said to be languages. The vast majority of conlangs are properly regarded as incomplete models of languages. Therefore, the conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is much, much more similar to the conlang with a list of three typological traits and a 1-paragraph phonological sketch in the phonology thread than it is to a real language. Both can thus be termed conlangs. Only when a conlang actually begins to behave as a language, i.e. see actual use - perhaps spoken by a community, but also perhaps only in written form by a single writer - can it be said to be a language.

You would consider Esperanto and Klingon to be languages, though, wouldn't you?

[Porphyrogenitos]

You would consider Esperanto and Klingon to be languages, though, wouldn't you?

Esperanto, of course. It has native speakers, although I wouldn't say that native speakers are a necessary criterion to be considered a language. The key thing is that it's as productive and usable as any natural language.

Klingon... I don't know a ton about Klingon, but my impression is that it's only a moderately-developed conlang, as far as famous conlangs go. There was that one guy who tried to get his son to speak Klingon, and it sort of worked, for a little while... My understanding is that the main problem other than lack of other people to speak to in it was the difficulty of talking about everyday life, due to the absence of the necessary vocabulary. So, I would say that maybe Klingon is more "languagey" than a typical conlang grammar sketch, but maybe not as fully a language as Esperanto is - it's something that could be a language, but doesn't seem to (yet) be capable of doing everything a language can do.

[Ahzoh]

I would actually say that almost all conlangs are not languages, and that there is no level completeness necessary to be a conlang. A conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is, of course, a conlang. But it is most certainly not a language. A language is not a short grammatical description and a wordlist. It is a social and psychological phenomenon that exists in human behavior. Thus, very few conlangs can be said to be languages. The vast majority of conlangs are properly regarded as incomplete models of languages. Therefore, the conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is much, much more similar to the conlang with a list of three typological traits and a 1-paragraph phonological sketch in the phonology thread than it is to a real language. Both can thus be termed conlangs. Only when a conlang actually begins to behave as a language, i.e. see actual use - perhaps spoken by a community, but also perhaps only in written form by a single writer - can it be said to be a language.

Then a conlang needs a corpus to be a language

[Arayaz]

I would actually say that almost all conlangs are not languages, and that there is no level completeness necessary to be a conlang. A conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is, of course, a conlang. But it is most certainly not a language. A language is not a short grammatical description and a wordlist. It is a social and psychological phenomenon that exists in human behavior. Thus, very few conlangs can be said to be languages. The vast majority of conlangs are properly regarded as incomplete models of languages. Therefore, the conlang with a 2-page grammatical sketch and a dictionary of 200 words is much, much more similar to the conlang with a list of three typological traits and a 1-paragraph phonological sketch in the phonology thread than it is to a real language. Both can thus be termed conlangs. Only when a conlang actually begins to behave as a language, i.e. see actual use - perhaps spoken by a community, but also perhaps only in written form by a single writer - can it be said to be a language.

I disagree. This would class all artlangs and almost all auxlangs as non-languages, which to me feels like a degradation of the art form.

[Porphyrogenitos]

Then a conlang needs a corpus to be a language

Yeah, that sounds totally reasonable. The language would then not be the conlang's grammar sketch/document, it would be the patterns of usage established in the corpus—which, contrary to the typical order of things, the grammar description would attempt to specify or predict in advance.

I disagree. This would class all artlangs and almost all auxlangs as non-languages, which to me feels like a degradation of the art form.

I don't see that as problematic at all. Of course almost all auxlangs aren't languages—they're things that people wish were languages.

As for "a degradation of the art form", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Conlanging is conlanging all the same, whatever you want to say conlangs really are. If you're coming to conlanging wanting the validation of knowing you've created a "real language", then that will lead to disappointment. I've seen that attitude lead to anger and a sense of inferiority—over the years I've seen a number of conlangers wander into online linguistics communities and ask why linguists aren't more interested in conlangs, or why they don't consider conlangs "worthy" of study in and of themselves, and leave in a huff when they don't get the answers they want.

This is basic map-territory stuff here. A language is a real-world psychological and social phenomenon. Linguists study these phenomena and write descriptions of them. Most conlangers never create real-world psychological phenomena, let alone social phenomena. What conlangers create is sketch versions, and sometimes full versions, of the things linguists use to describe languages. We are creating maps of fictional territories. We aren't creating actual territories—unless you are charismatic or prolific enough to actually create a new "territory" somewhere in the world.

[Arayaz]

I disagree. This would class all artlangs and almost all auxlangs as non-languages, which to me feels like a degradation of the art form.

I don't see that as problematic at all. Of course almost all auxlangs aren't languages—they're things that people wish were languages.

As for "a degradation of the art form", I'm not sure what you mean by that. Conlanging is conlanging all the same, whatever you want to say conlangs really are. If you're coming to conlanging wanting the validation of knowing you've created a "real language", then that will lead to disappointment. I've seen that attitude lead to anger and a sense of inferiority—over the years I've seen a number of conlangers wander into online linguistics communities and ask why linguists aren't more interested in conlangs, or why they don't consider conlangs "worthy" of study in and of themselves, and leave in a huff when they don't get the answers they want.

This is basic map-territory stuff here. A language is a real-world psychological and social phenomenon. Linguists study these phenomena and write descriptions of them. Most conlangers never create real-world psychological phenomena, let alone social phenomena. What conlangers create is sketch versions, and sometimes full versions, of the things linguists use to describe languages. We are creating maps of fictional territories. We aren't creating actual territories—unless you are charismatic or prolific enough to actually create a new "territory" somewhere in the world.

I see your point, but still I disagree. What are we but what we create? I'd say this comes down to terminology. No conlang is used like real languages are, of course, except possibly Esperanto and maybe even Klingon. Yet they are languages ─ ways of communicating information that can, in theory, communicate any idea. Like, Ruykkarraber cannot currently say "a language is a real-world psychological and social phenomenon," but if I needed it to be able to, I could easily make it possible.

I think our disagreement here rests on where the limits of a language or conlang lie. If a conlang's grammar and its lexicon and perhaps a corpus are the only things that can be considered parts of it, then they are limited, almost all of them, in ways that natlangs aren't, since no conlanger (cmiiw, Khemehekis) has made a language with hundreds of thousands of words ... but if we instead say that a conlang does exist in full, and simply isn't completely documented (in fact, I believe that the multiverse theory implies that all conlangs do in fact exist as actual natlangs in an alternate universe, but I won't go into my weird and convenient theories here), then it can do anything, we just haven't studied that part of it yet, or haven't given that liberty to it yet. The key word, of course, being yet.

[Visions1]

It's worth asking whether the snippets of "language" put into, say, books and films are conlangs or not, when they are designed as just letters in a string with a translation, but no grammar is specified (or even written in the first place).
Or proper names - both in fictional and real-life situations.
Or other marginal situations.
I think with we make definitions there, we can get some clarity.
Maybe looks at definitions
Honestly this feels like splitting hairs.

Also, one should note that there are plenty of real-world languages that are very lacking in corpus - for example, Etruscan, or some creoles. While sure, people once spoke Etruscan and lived it, it has very little in words now.
And, you don't need many words or rules to speak a real life language adequately. Preschoolers speak, albeit poorly.
And again, if languages are psychological, Klingon is a poor example for our argument, because rather long texts have been written in it. So, it's been used practically for stuff. (Although written use isn't the same as spoken, so you should probably hash that out too. But I think it's obvious using a written language is, well, using a language.)

Also, fundamentally, you can't create a conlang without some basic cultural notes. For example, kinship or animal species.
But at the same time, you don't need to know culture to know a language exists. IIRC there are dead, limited-recording languages in the Americas that we have grammar to speak on a barebones level - but little remembered in terms of culture. (I imagine the opposite is more common, but theoretically, you can have a bigger corpus than understanding of culture in any case.)

Basically, we're asking if use (at some point in history) is what makes a "language" a "language," or if it's corpus and grammar existing are enough. I think this is some real hair-splitting. Call it real or not, I think they count - though in as much as a fictional species is a species. It is - as a concept. Just not as a reality. Should we bring in Aristotle or something?